[AndrewC]

Now you are contradicting your answer to say that the only “change” comes from some “tote bag” ( a very very small “tote bag” of bacterial pseudogenes) of discarded mutations that are then expressed.
Do you see where these two positions cannot coherently coexist in a rational mind?

Before I answer, I will give you a chance to reread my post 408, especially my last para.

[allmendream]

That a bacteria can receive information from gene transfer from other bacteria doesn't explain why a bacteria under stress would express error prone DNA polymerase or explain where novel genetic solutions would derive from.

If they didn't change they would die - that is why bacteria express error prone DNA polymerase during stress.

This could possibly reactivate pseudogenes through mutation of the sequences then rendered them ‘pseudo’ - but that is a small part of the effect.

The effect of expressing error prone DNA polymerase during stress is not to change expression of the genome (expressing psuedogenes) or to engage in gene transfer from other bacteria - it is to introduce changes into THE GENOME ITSELF.

Instead of reproducing two daughter cells that are as close to itself as possible in DNA - it introduces mutations. This has the effect of introducing novel variations.

Shapiro pointed out that novel evolutionary variations come about through regulated cell processes.

Expressing error prone DNA polymerase is a regulated cell process that introduces novel evolutionary variations.

Novel evolutionary variations. Not a ‘tote bag’.